Stephen Franks explains the key difference between Iain Lees-Galloway and Phil Goff

As readers will know from yesterday Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux have received work visas to come to New Zealand.

We also know that the multitude of claims from the intolerant left about their potential immigration status were based on lies and mistruths, most of which continue to be repeated by the useful idiots in the media.

The immigration minister himself even mentioned one of the lies in his gritted-teeth press release: Quote:

“However, the Immigration Act and immigration instructions have clear criteria for the granting of a visa, including certain character requirements, all of which I have been advised the pair meet.”

Neither had been convicted of a crime, nor banned from the United Kingdom or Australia as had been reported, he said. End quote.??

Got that? Not banned from the UK. Now if the media could stop referring to them as “far-right”.

Stephen Franks, who is the solicitor in the Free Speech Coalition lawsuit, explains that although Iain Lees-Galloway has bought the story media and the left-wing are selling about the pair, he is constrained by law as to what he can and can’t do: Quote:

The Minister of Immigration has issued an?exemplary statement?explaining why in a free society he can not like some people and their views, but not try to ban them from New Zealand.

He?s granted 10 day work visas to Molyneux and Southern, the two controversial Canadian speakers banned by the Mayor of Auckland from public meeting halls in ?his? city.

The statement is also a great example of the Rule of Law in action:

a) it shows a Minister applying and working under the law;

b) it shows how the law protects unpopular views and the right of people to express them;

c) it protects the rights of people in New Zealand who:

  • want to hear these speakers and make up their own minds whether they are repugnant;
  • want to see and hear them unfiltered by the distortions of social media;
  • want to question or challenge them in person, where others can see and hear, and where they can?t block the questioner;
  • don?t want politicians to decide who and what they can hear.

c) it shows how the law protects the Minister from unfair and dangerous pressure to abuse power to exclude political speech that is unwelcome to the establishment.

But most clearly it shows the Mayor what he should be doing. End quote.

Phil Goff won’t do the right thing, because he almost never has. He will continue to dissemble and attack, painting himself even further into the corner with his own paint and his own brush.

‘Its? Never My Fault’
Credit: Rick H

Legal experts I’ve spoken to yesterday say Goff and the Auckland Council are going to lose — and lose badly. Government is all about process and no process was followed, as outlined in the statement of claim. Iain Lees-Galloway made the right decision. He had to when the acting PM came out and said he thought they should be allowed into the country.

Phil Goff and his sycophants are going to find out that you can’t unilaterally override contracts and make decisions based on political perceptions. You have to deal with facts and you have to deal fairly.